Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Additional Options

Miscellaneous Options

Automatically parse links in text

Automatically embed media (requires automatic parsing of links in text to be on).

Rate Thread

If you like, you can add a score for this thread.

Topic Review (Newest First)

07-03-2006 10:41 AM

scruffy fly

Quote:

Originally Posted by juro

..........

If we decide to clean-up the hazardous waste on Otis to make it real estate, then the windmills could be removed very cheaply with men and trucks wearing jeans and helmets, not drysuits from boats.

If the sound proves disastrous, the recovery effort would be even more disastrous in terms of costs and residual effects from demolition.

.

Definely less expensive than paying every year for ever from a superfund site where you have contaminated water pouring out of a mine. IMHO

07-03-2006 10:34 AM

scruffy fly

Quote:

Originally Posted by juro

Thanks for the insightful explanation.

I am left to rely on common sense at this point. The cost savings of a land based deployment and the maintenance savings over time should allow for a significant cost/return ratio over the pie-in-the-sky plan to put them on the sound. Anyone can see that, and it could be as much as 2:1 in cost difference for each. If so, theoretically, then we could generate significantly more power for the same cost and for a more reliable period of time.

.

They should be putting windmills in both places.

06-29-2006 09:29 AM

Chris

Interesting discussion.
Another item to consider against putting the towers in the sound is dioxin. The cooling oils in the turbines get turned immediately into one of the deadliest toxins we've managed to concoct. Knowing the base is already a toxic site lends itself to being a more acceptable place for these towers. I'm not suggesting they sould be allowed to further polute that or any other site but imagine the devistating effect if one or more of the turbines should split open and pill the oil into that habitat. Not to mention the potential of all of them.

Other Solutions :
New Construction:
Local zoning requirements of a minimal PV generating capacity for every new structure would in a short time make a substantial reduction in our need for fossil fuel gerating capacity if only in eliminating added generating plants. As a part of a whole home package at the front end it could add as little as 10k to a project and pay for itself quite rapidly. Greener commercial space should be the norm not the exception.

I will be adding both PV panels and hydronics to my house in the next couple of years. I will be allowing for battery storage in my basement in the wiring configuration but won't be adding them initially as the added expense is considerable. I will generate power, selling back by day at the green wholesale generation rate and buy it back at night at the off peak residential consumer rate.
The hydronic system will include two 500 gallon cisterns with heat absorbing media and will be circulated through my boiler via pumps and three way solonoid valves- so colder water isn't pushed through the system- isolating the loop to the roof from the loop through the boiler unless at a temperature sufficient to assist the system.

Local/ State and Regional Government:
I have decided that to wait for a government who would rather send my money to further enrich countries that don't like us AND to fight unpopular wars to try to secure a resourse on the decline and in greater demand as each day passes is folly. I must, WE must take it upon ourselves as individuals and communities to do what the feds refuse to. Look at Portland Oregon. They have in place rule governing new commercial property requiring green construction practices. They are adding mass transit and have a fleet of low cost hybrid cars available for short term- by the hour- rental for personal need, ie doctor or dentist appointments etc.- to support enthusiasm for and to lessen the feelings of lost freedom and flexibility of movement induced by the thought of using public transportation. There is more to their program which I forget at this writing but my point is that if we wait for the crooks in Washington to act we will end up as unprepared as we were when Pearl Harbor was attacked and forced into huge sacrifices and rationing of resourses because we failed to plan.

What Maine is Doing:
Our Maine congressmen have secured 10 million dollars toward research and development of alternative resourses and studies at the universities and by private entities toward these ends. Permits are being prosessed for a high volume bio-deisel plant on a dismantled tank farm site in Buckport at the mouth of the Penobscot River. We have a naval air station going the way of Ft. Devens which is a prime site for development of alternative energy production one of several multi- use plans on the table. A consortium of buisness and researchers has been formed called The Fractionation Development Corporation which is in the process of designing and building energy parks in conjuction with the large paper mills, beginning with the Mead mill in Rumford to take the bio-mass, the trees, prior to reaching the mills and separating the usable parts of the harvest, giving the fiber- which is all the paper mills use- and making fuels from the rest. From the rest of the plant bio-fuels such as ethenols, bio deisels and gasses which burn like propane can be extracted and refined from them. Much of the refining capacity is already in place around New Jersey and could be retrofitted and marginal cost and toward great gain in energy independence. The bio- fuels can be processed and distributed locally.

History Was Right:
In the 1930's Henry Ford, using Mr. Deisel's engine- which was orignially designed to run on vegetable based fuel- built a car. The body panels were made of vegetable based polyolefins and ran on bio-deisel. It was never eccepted for mass production largely because by that time the steel and railroad barons had pushed govenment to move our contry from a vegetable based industrial market econoomy to petroleum based one. Prior to the turn of the last century most or our lubicants, solvents and adhesives came from vegetable oils, linseed, flaxseed, hemp seed and others as well as rendered animal byproducts. Farmers, prior to the change to petroleum were some of the wealthiest people in the country. Taht changed larely in part to the rock oil market and industrial farming. Both have been extremely detrimental to our environment.

I am on a rant now and will back off from it. I guess the real point here is there are solutions to our energy issues. Left to the petroleum barons running the country and the economy we can plan on more of the same as far as where our tax dollars go and for what reasons. If you feel what they are doing with your money is acceptable than don't change. I for one will do what I can on the level I can do it, at home.

I agree the sound is the wrong place for this development and there are better places to put it. It should be built just not there. We MUST however get out or the N.I.M.B.Y. mindset if we are to get beyond the stranglehold rock oil has on the world.

06-28-2006 03:39 PM

juro

Thanks for the insightful explanation.

Your position is that windmills in Nantucket Sound will solve or at least offset the coal power industry in a meaningful way. Further you mention that the loss of generation (if there is any) from deployment on Otis is too much to make it feasible.

At this point as much as I appreciate your views and polite rebuttal I would have to see some proof that this energy will actually offset/abate the coal power problem and that deployment on Otis could not generate as much power as deployment on water when you factor cost and uptime over the years.

Is there any such study available to confirm these things?

I am left to rely on common sense at this point. The cost savings of a land based deployment and the maintenance savings over time should allow for a significant cost/return ratio over the pie-in-the-sky plan to put them on the sound. Anyone can see that, and it could be as much as 2:1 in cost difference for each. If so, theoretically, then we could generate significantly more power for the same cost and for a more reliable period of time.

If we decide to clean-up the hazardous waste on Otis to make it real estate, then the windmills could be removed very cheaply with men and trucks wearing jeans and helmets, not drysuits from boats.

If the sound proves disastrous, the recovery effort would be even more disastrous in terms of costs and residual effects from demolition.

Not to repeat myself too much but it seems warranted - I am not against clean power, but the plan to put them in the sound is reminiscent of Reagan's "star wars" program. Yes, that WAS all about money; I worked on several defense programs in that era (quite a list of contracts including minuteman, MX, Aegis, land systems, etc) and know a little more than I should about these programs. I will stop there on that topic.

Anyway put em in, generate power all good - just keep them out of the sound cause that's just plain stupid IMHO.

06-28-2006 01:45 PM

weremichael

Quote:

Originally Posted by juro

Interesting but....

You ante the conversation from emotion to one of efficiency and stewardship, I call that and raise it one - this is about selfish profitability for private enterprises and the antithesis of stewardship IMHO.

I do agree that the largest motivation for change in our market economy is profitability. This has led us further into the "disharmony" with nature that humans exist in today. I can't imagine the wind farmers to be any more greedy than the leaders of corporations devoted to coal mining and the oil and gas industry.

As far as some of your other comments:

1. The impact of the construction, usage and updating of the wind turbines: I am positive this impact is a lot less detrimental than the status quo, period. The impact of offshore wind farms can't compete with this http://www.polarinertia.com/jan06/im...oal/coal01.jpg. Perspective is really needed.

2. For me stewardship is pursuing the most responsible/least detrimental choices when it comes to our home. At this time, renewable resources (i.e. wind and solar) are our best option. Are they perfect? No. All forms of life are consumers. We humans have an amazing ability to consume on such a grand scale that it is completely unbalanced. We are going to continue f*cking up the environment as long as we exist (this I truly believe).

3. For me the debate is so much larger than the small impact on aquatic life off the shore of Mass. The oceans are being destroyed on a global scale by commercial fishing, large scale chemical dumping, oil spills and dumping of raw sewage by less "advanced" societies. The oceans are screwed and we are bickering over windmills off the coast of rich Americans. Again I can't stress it enough, PERSPECTIVE.

Perspectively yours,

Michael

06-27-2006 07:12 AM

juro

Interesting but....

aside from aesthetics, how do you see laying miles of cable across the sea floor and hundreds of square miles of rusting gyrating propellers and leaking lubricants over the migratory routes of countless species of fauna in the air and water, pollution from construction, perpetual maintenance of corroding mechanisms, and the certain unforseen disasters of such human mistakes as "stewardship of the planet"?

I see this as the introduction of indstrial waste and disruption of natural order, not stewardship in any sense. Otis is deeply contaminated and most of it can not be made into residential land without great expense, much more than the difference in energy generation between the waterfront and the hills looming above which is the base.

There are no trees of any significant height on the base, cape scrub pines are stunted by the constant wind, another piece of evidence that my Otis proposal is on-queue.

I don't buy it - putting windmills across the miles of Nantucket Sound is not stewardship of the planet, it's abuse of nature. This project is not really about the efficiency of energy generation, albeit Otis would be very effective I am sure, it's about a private enterprise's pipedream whose ultimate motive is profit.

You ante the conversation from emotion to one of efficiency and stewardship, I call that and raise it one - this is about selfish profitability for private enterprises and the antithesis of stewardship IMHO.

06-26-2006 11:37 PM

weremichael

Quote:

Originally Posted by juro

Michael -

However the proposal is to put them over many miles of Nantucket Sound (in the water) and therein lies the fault in the proposal.

Earlier someone mentioned solar panels on rooftops... I wonder what percentage of our current consumption we could supplement into the grid by putting a solar panel on every household in America? Probably a huge percentage of it. Not sure we'd need windmills in the water then.

Juro,

My understanding of the east coast is limited so correct me if I am wrong. Wouldn't a retired airbase turn into desirable real estate due to high population density? I imagine that the US Gov't could turn a tidy profit by selling off this land to developers. That might be the reason why the wind turbines haven't been installed on the base.

I also believe that it does come down to a cost ratio analysis (as everything does in our market economy). I assume that the research that went into this project indicates that the best consistent wind in the area is generated where they want to install the wind turbines. Economically it would seem that Nantucket is now in the wrong place at the wrong time (as far as future aesthetics go).

I can relate to the desire to preserve an historic, beautiful island's view. I don't envy you east coasters because the choices become so much harder when one factors in the established, wealthy history of such places. But the larger question I have to wonder is: Can we let aesthetics rule over our stewardship of this planet??

I stated earlier that solar panels on every home/business contributing to a grid would definitely deminish the need for the large quantities of turbines proposed around the country. Solar panels are completely unintrusive and are a proven technology. Again ignore my ignorance, but being so north and on the coast I have to wonder if this area of Mass. get enough yearly sunlight to make this a viable alternative??

Beau,

I think getting into some land next door to your sanctuary would generate some damn fine hunting. I've heard from friends that the relatively new (and very renewable) poplar tree farms in eastern Oregon have large herds of mule deer (and a healthy population of cougars) waiting to be burger and jerkey (no mountain lion burger/jerkey please). If your lucky the tree farms will be the same (if the cattle don't eat everything first). I hope that works out for you and again I really feel your pain.

Michael

06-24-2006 08:23 AM

beau purvis

You make a lot of good points.My emotions have settled a bit.I knew they were going to do a couple windmills ,but,when I learned it was to be 12,000 acres of such a rich,beautiful place ,it hurt.And,I must admit,if I had a ranch,I would do a few of them for my own power and to sell the surplus back to the local utility.I guess I should just adapt and buy or lease some property next door to what will be unhunted sanctuary land!However ,they will probably just overgraze it,since deer there will no longer be an economic plus versus cattle!Texas is 98% privately owned.So, at least it is not being forced on us on public owned flats or dams on rivers!Beau

06-24-2006 12:49 AM

juro

Michael -

I see your perspective.... and agree wind farms in an expanse such as the obsolete Otis Air Force base property (on land) would be fantastic!

However the proposal is to put them over many miles of Nantucket Sound (in the water) and therein lies the fault in the proposal.

The visual is only a small part of the problem, and your appreciation for such a sight, however admirable, would be in an overwhelming minority.

Earlier someone mentioned solar panels on rooftops... I wonder what percentage of our current consumption we could supplement into the grid by putting a solar panel on every household in America? Probably a huge percentage of it. Not sure we'd need windmills in the water then.

06-23-2006 11:38 PM

weremichael

Quote:

Originally Posted by beau purvis

I like seeing them in Wyoming also.But to make a differnce,would you like seeing them everywhere in WY

Beau,

Of course I don't want to see them everywhere, but the fact is I DO like seeing them in my backyard. It's a sign of true progress. I see it not only as environmentally sound practice but potentially economically helpful for my community. I see wind harvesting as a great alternative for small time ranchers who can't compete with corporate beef. These ranchers should be able to plant these things and supplement their income, instead of selling their land so Billy and Joanne Cityfolk can have their ranchette/"nature" experience.

I do feel your pain in losing one of your favorite hunting/wildlife viewing areas. Some of my favorite streams/mushroom hunting grounds from childhood were destroyed by clearcutting. At least your land/whitetail still exist. You have to at least have solace in that?

As far as comparing the intrusiveness of turbines to well pads, I couldn't disagree more. I view renewable energy extractors as less intrusive (by their very nature they don't intrude as deeply into the earth as any pumpjack) and more aesthetically pleasing than fossil fuel energy extractors.

Being from Oregon (my old home state), you have to love that the Columbia Gourge is turning into a wind mine. Now if we can just harvest enough energy from the turbines to make those damn dams obsolete, then we could all be bonking salmon till our arms can't lift a priest.

The real problem is that we need a lot (I can't stress A LOT enough) energy for our everyday conveniences and the old reliable energy sources are almost gone. Wind is one of the greatest alternative. With that said there are other amazing alternatives too. For example, I bet in Texas that if everybody had solar panels on their home there wouldn't be as many wind turbines cluttering up fine hunting lands.

Michael

06-22-2006 08:25 AM

beau purvis

I like seeing them in Wyoming also.But to make a differnce,would you like seeing them everywhere in WY.I just found out the 3rd generation just got control of one of my favorite texas ranches.Thier interest in it is only income.therfore, they are putting windmills on half the ranch!No longer any hunting access!Way more intrusive looking than the pumpjacks of the oil wells that are there!I llike to drive that ranch for pictures and wildlife viewing.No longer an option let alone searching for another 170 whitetail or chasing Quail!Beau

06-14-2006 02:05 PM

weremichael

After talking to my sister who lives in Boston, apparently these windmills off of Nantucket will mess with fish migration. I was all for it until I heard about that. On the overall esthetic, I love seeing them here in Wyoming. The white contrast compared to dark cloudy skies is beautiful. It affirms that humans can make proper decisions every once in a while.

On the subject of ethanol, it appears that a process has been created that utilize fibrous materials . That seems like a much better solution than using plain old corn.

I had no idea they are such an urgent global concern. The carbon dioxide generated just in the China coal fires equals that produced by all cars in the US.

06-03-2006 04:32 PM

Moonlight

Has this morphed?

Wind power is all over Eastern Oregon and Washington its not much different than looking at all the transmission lines for electricity. As far as placing windmills in the Ocean it sounds like folly to me, evrything I have ever done on the ocean that required moving parts took way to much care and maintanace compared to the same amount of machinery on the land.
As to the subject of Ethanol it takes 500,000 gallons of water over a three month period to raise an acre of corn for the production of Ethanol and if we were to try and replace all "Mid EastOil" with home grown Ethanol it would require the use of 97% of the available agricultural lands now generally in production.( information from an in depth program on investing in energy on CNBC)
Obviously we are not going to do any such thing so we need to continue to try and conserve and to build up public transportation and do more research on Hydrogen Fuel Cells and some form of a clean coal burning process. While a bit convuluted burning coal and pumping the CO2 effluent under ground to produce more oil sounds interesting but I am betting some funds on Hydrogen (putting money where the ole mouth is)

06-02-2006 11:34 PM

beau purvis

Dont make up your opinion on this post too soon, but,isnt that an example of "not in my backyard"!Everyone critizises those in power for not doi ng anything,but then they wont let anyone do anything!Personaly,I am against wind power.I think they are Cousinarts in the sky.They will take up a tremendous amount of real estate to make a difference.I love the wide open spaces and dont especially think oil companies have done well in the distant past.However,I think it makes sense to drill anwar on a space the size of a pastage stamp on a football field.I would prefer that to windmills everywhere,including on the flats,carving up migrating birds and waterfowl.Which brings up other ?'s.Why has no one bitched about development of Canadian tar sands?Again,I would rather do horizontal drilling for oil than rip up gazillion acres of northern forest with draglines and D10's and then heat up all that ripped up earth,to extract oil.That sounds worse to the envirnment to me!I cant believe no one has taken pictures of all the deforestation and ripped up earth.No outcry.Maybe I am wrong in my analysis, but I think it is worth exploring.I have seen no questioning of this! I did not hear of any oil spills in last years horrible hurracanes.But you guys and florida and california wont permit drilling.Where would we be without the gulf.And ,of all things ,It seems that the best fishing is around the platforms!!!Now,dont forget,I am against windmills on the flats.It does seem that the best place for them would be the base.My point is, not in my back yard and let us not blindly adopt alternatives that may be worse for the enviroment!!Everything has a cost.Ethanol will take a tremendous amount of land.Therfore what happens to wetlands ?What happens to Pheasants?There is something bad about all alternatives.Lets dont be blind and lets make sence in our choices.Beau

This thread has more than 15 replies.
Click here to review the whole thread.